Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Jordan Hill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Jordan Hill

    He actually was quite bad on defense last year. He played mostly at the 5; inexperience and a lack of strength did him in. Their D was 5 point better when he was on the bench, and opposing 5's averaged 22 pts/48 mins against him. He may be good eventually, but he won't help now.

    Also, Houston will want a center in return, since they lost Brad Miller and Yao's status is up in the air. They only have Chuck Hayes and Thabeet left.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Jordan Hill

      Originally posted by mikeyism View Post
      He actually was quite bad on defense last year. He played mostly at the 5; inexperience and a lack of strength did him in. Their D was 5 point better when he was on the bench, and opposing 5's averaged 22 pts/48 mins against him. He may be good eventually, but he won't help now.

      Also, Houston will want a center in return, since they lost Brad Miller and Yao's status is up in the air. They only have Chuck Hayes and Thabeet left.
      We could sign and trade Foster (who is form Texas) and/or Soloman Jones
      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Jordan Hill

        How about Earl Clark to replace Solo Jones spot as 3rd center off the bench, he's a FA and would be cheap, and has potential defensively and a lil Offense, and wasn't bird interested in him last trade deadline???

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Jordan Hill

          Originally posted by D squared fan View Post
          How about Earl Clark to replace Solo Jones spot as 3rd center off the bench, he's a FA and would be cheap, and has potential defensively and a lil Offense, and wasn't bird interested in him last trade deadline???
          Clark is closer to a 3 than he is a 5.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Jordan Hill

            Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
            Clark is closer to a 3 than he is a 5.
            He's bulked up considerably in Orlando.



            He looks the part of a PF now, which is not to say that he can play PF effectively. But his short stint in Orlando seems promising:

            http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...-gm-otis-smith

            At the suggestion of the Magic's coaching staff, he added 10 pounds of muscle within two months of arriving in Orlando. Knowing he needed to improve offensively, he went through extra shooting drills after practices and after games. He studied lots and lots of film with Magic assistants.

            Those assertions of poor work ethic? The Magic didn't see it.

            "It's been a good experience for me, coming to a team that accepted me with open arms," said Clark, 23. "I just look forward to staying here and building it with the team."

            Clark, an unrestricted free agent, will gauge interest from other teams this summer, although he did say "I don't want to play anywhere else." Magic GM Otis Smith said he likes Clark but the two sides have not begun talks on a new contract.

            Clark has the potential to be a legitimate forward, at either spot. He now weighs almost 250 pounds and his wingspan is 7 feet, 2 inches, second on the Magic to only Dwight Howard's 7-foot-5 reach. But even with that size, Clark is still quick and athletic enough to defend opposing threes.

            Clark demonstrated his defensive ability at times this year, helping limit Kevin Durant and LeBron James to sub-par performances during the regular season. Magic coach Stan Van Gundy has said several times he believes Clark can be a "special" defender in the NBA.

            "His potential as a defensive player and as a defensive impact guy is unlimited," Van Gundy said, "if he can get down some better team defensive principles and focus and if he can truly understand that his route to being a special player in this league lies at the defensive end."

            Clark's offensive skills are still raw and he doesn't always seem to grasp the team's defensive scheme. That's what kept him on the bench in this year's playoffs.
            Would love to add another quality defender on the cheap.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Jordan Hill

              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              Houston apparently offered Hill + Thabeet to Golden State for Biedrins, the WARRIORS said no, that's bizarre. Biedrins has 3/$27 mil left and has apparently forgotten how to play basketball or something.

              Anyway, he is available and the price isn't too high apparently. Guy's no savior but I'd definitely be interested in bringing him in on the cheap.
              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
              I'd LOVE to get Jordan Hill. Hell, if the price isn't high, I'd love Thabeet as a backup Center.
              It sounds like the price is pretty damned low to me.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Jordan Hill

                Would you trade Hibbert and change for Hill and Thabeet?

                We're banking on pure potential
                "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Jordan Hill

                  No way to Thabeet. He is horrible. Jordan Hill is a no to me as well. We need a good/great players...not scrubs. Set your sights higher than basement dwellers.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Jordan Hill

                    Originally posted by mildlysane View Post
                    No way to Thabeet. He is horrible. Jordan Hill is a no to me as well. We need a good/great players...not scrubs. Set your sights higher than basement dwellers.
                    Thank you. Jordan Hill is a bust.

                    I didn't like him in college and he hasn't shown that he can play at the NBA level. He's like Ike Diogu in that he can score but he doesn't understand basketball plays and is out of position all the time. IOW, he has a low basketball IQ.

                    Carl Landry and Chuck Hayes are much better prospects to go after and can be signed through free agency without trading any assets.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Jordan Hill

                      Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                      Would you trade Hibbert and change for Hill and Thabeet?

                      We're banking on pure potential
                      I wouldn't. I always want to get the best player in a trade and I believe that's Hibbert.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Jordan Hill

                        I'd love to go after Jordan Hill or Patrick Patterson.
                        First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Jordan Hill

                          If Bird can trade Rush for a pretty decent PF, then I'll consider the Hill trade even (since I thought we gave up a bit too much).
                          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Jordan Hill

                            You have more faith in Bird's 2nd round drafting abilities than I do Sparhawk, to think that losing a 2nd round pick is what makes the Hill trade terrible.
                            Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Jordan Hill

                              Originally posted by MrSparko View Post
                              You have more faith in Bird's 2nd round drafting abilities than I do Sparhawk, to think that losing a 2nd round pick is what makes the Hill trade terrible.
                              Huh, is that how you deduce giving up too much? We had a lottery value player (regardless of your opinion of whether he'll be good or not), and traded him along with the 42 (small value, but still value) and Lorbek (no value) for Hill.

                              If anything, we should have gotten the Spurs late first pick as well. Hill gives us depth, but he's still just a backup pg/sg.
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Jordan Hill

                                My love for the University of Arizona is pretty well documented. So, it's pretty much a given that I would love to have Jordan Hill on our team. He's very talented though as well. To whoever said he wasn't impressive in college, that's just foolish. He was an All-American, and All-Pac10 player and averaged 18 points and 11 rebounds a game as a senior in the PAC10. He was also All-Defensive team, in one of the most competitive conferences in college hoops. He was the first Arizona player since 1978 to average a double-double. Coming from the school who has produced the MOST NBA draft picks in history, I'd say that's pretty impressive.

                                He hasn't exactly set the league on fire, but he has shown flashes of what he can do when given consistent playing time. He only averaged 15 minutes a game last season in Houston and put up pretty solid numbers in that time. Double his minutes and you're likely looking at a guy giving you 11 points,9 boards and a block per game. He could easily play 30 minutes a game off the bench for us, between backing up the 4 and 5 spots. We could do a lot worse than having Tyler Hansbrough and Jordan Hill anchoring our PF rotation.
                                Last edited by SMosley21; 06-27-2011, 12:00 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X